sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 09 06:06PM >> warning:   >> <https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130>   > Well yes of course the CPU gets throttled to prevent overheating.   Throttling happens on all smartphones for various reasons, but the point is Android does indeed throttle in certain situations as well. And those situations aren't clearly documented for Android from what I can see.   > Apple is throttling because the batteries seem to age in a way that > makes them incapable of powering the device properly at full speed and > the device then crashes and unexpectedly reboots or locks up.   All batteries degrade over time, and there has been zero evidence that there is a widespread issue with Apple device battery defects across all models of their devices. Also, Apple devices aren't "crashing", "unexpectedly rebooting", or "locking up" due to dying batteries - those are not symptoms of the problem. The symptom of the problem is the device spontaneously shuts down in the middle of whatever you are doing because performance was allowed to spike to a point where the current draw was more than the battery in its deteriorated condition could handle. If that happens to be during a critical moment during a 911 call, you're fucked. Nobody wants their smartphone to spontaneously shut down. So Apple added a feature in iOS 10 that monitored battery health, detected when batteries could no longer provide needed current, and reduced *peak* *spikes* in performance from happening, which has the natural effect of preventing unwanted shutdowns and extends runtime. And since only peak spikes are prevented, most apps continue to run at full speed. Extended runtime on a dying battery is something all of us want out of our devices (well, those of us without a trollish agenda, that is).   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 09 10:12AM -0800 a) Jimmy Neutron is not interested in facts, discussion, or conversation. b) This thread will not die until Jimmy Neutron and its acolytes are ignored. c) You are preaching to the converted on the one hand. d) You are dealing with invincible ignorance on the other hand. e) You will make no converts and change no minds on the gripping hand.   Please let this thread die. Please do not support the troll. And, please, let's endeavor to kill the troll the next time it inevitably shows itself.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 09 06:18PM > That's not true. Did you read the Harvard Study which, admittedly, was a > second or even third-order effect - but still - plenty of people noticed > the slowdown - and plenty noticed the phones just shutting off also.   That "study", which basically amounted to a Harvard student doing an informal Google Trends search for "iPhone slow" and correlating it with iOS release dates, has been long debunked:   Sendhi Mullainathan (the author of the "study") said himself:   "Data on search frequency would not allow us to infer intent. No matter how suggestive, this data alone doesn't allow you to determine conclusively whether my phone is actually slower and, if so, why."   <https://thenextweb.com/apple/2017/10/07/study-apple-isnt-slowing-down-your-old-iphone/>   Another troll fail, brought to you by "Harry".   > When Apple *secretly*   FALSE. It was mentioned in the iOS 10.2.1 release notes as anyone with a web browser and half a brain cell can plainly see:   "iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone."   <https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893>   There's nothing "secret" about this.   >, *permanently*,   FALSE. The feature activates only on devices whose batteries can no longer supply nominal current and only during *peak* resource consumption, which means most apps are unaffected since most do not cause peak spikes in performance. And replacing the dying battery with a new one returns those *peak* spikes back to 100% performance. Nothing "permanent" about it.   > and *drastically* cuts CPU performance after only a year of use,   FALSE. The feature only activates when apps cause *peak* spikes in performance, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of apps, and only takes effect on devices whose batteries are at the end of their lifespan and cannot provide the needed current without prematurely shutting off the device, which extends the runtime of devices with dying batteries - that's something most people want. Hardly "drastic".   > why should Apple apologize for that.   You should apologize for all of your blatant, trollish lies.   > Hence, an iPhone X is really, after a year, an iPhone V (1/2 X) in terms of > CPU performance.   Another lie. Troll, troll, troll your boat...   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 09 06:49PM On 9 Jan 2018 18:06:36 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   >> Well yes of course the CPU gets throttled to prevent overheating.   > Throttling happens on all smartphones for various reasons, but the point > is Android does indeed throttle in certain situations as well.   Despite the Apple Apologists incessant fabricated claisms always attempting to imply that everyone *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* throttles CPUs (to less than half the original speeds!) after only a year or so of use, the facts say otherwise.   Android Phones Do Not Slow Down Due to Old Batteries: Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC <https://www.bintooshoots.com/android-phones-do-not-slow-down-due-to-old-batteries-samsung-lg-motorola-htc/>   Apple Alone: Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC All Deny Crippling Phones to Preserve Battery Life <https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/261273-apple-alone-samsung-lte-motorola-htc-deny-crippling-phones-preserve-battery-life>   We don+IBk-t throttle performance on our Android phones like Apple, say HTC and Motorola <https://www.androidauthority.com/htc-motorola-iphone-throttle-cpu-performance-android-826193/>   HTC & Motorola don't follow Apple's idea of slowing down CPU performance <https://phandroid.com/2017/12/28/htc-motorola-cpu-throttling-response/>   HTC and Motorola say they don't slow down phones with old batteries like Apple does <https://www.phonedog.com/2017/12/28/htc-motorola-dont-slow-down-phones-old-batteries-apple>   Not us! Android makers say they never slow phones over battery problems <https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-cpu-throttle-battery-news/>   Samsung and LG also confirm they do not slow down phones with older batteries <https://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-and-LG-also-confirm-they-do-not-slow-down-phones-with-older-batteries_id101140>   Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC Confirm They Do Not Slow Down Older Devices <http://www.bighugenews.com/post/Samsung,-LG,-Motorola,-HTC-confirm-they-do-not-slow-down-older-devices/>   No, Samsung and LG don+IBk-t throttle their devices like Apple <https://www.dailydot.com/debug/android-slow-down-phones/>   Samsung And LG Take A Dig At Apple, Claim That They Don+IBk-t Slow Down Their Phones With Older Batteries <http://naturalmakeuptutorialforbeginners.tk/news/Samsung-and-LG-Take-A-Dig-At-Apple,-Claim-That-They-Don%E2%80%99t-Slow-Down-Their-Phones-With-Older-Batteries/>   We don+IBk-t throttle performance on our Android phones like Apple, say HTC and Motorola <https://www.androidauthority.com/htc-motorola-iphone-throttle-cpu-performance-android-826193/>   HTC and Motorola say they don+IBk-t slow old phones like Apple does <https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/28/16825288/htc-motorola-dont-slow-processor-speeds-old-batteries-apple>   HTC & Motorola say they don't throttle older phones like Apple does as they age <https://androidandme.com/2017/12/news/htc-and-motorola-say-they-dont-throttle-older-phones-as-batteries-age/>   Samsung, LG, HTC & Motorola don+IBk-t slow old phones like Apple does <https://www.androidos.in/2017/12/android-phones-cpu-throttling/>   Joining other Android makers, Samsung & LG claim to not throttle CPUs as batteries age <https://9to5google.com/2017/12/29/lg-samsung-not-throttling-cpu-battery-apple/>   https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/apple-battery-controversy-this-is-what-samsung-lg-motorola-and-htc-have-to-say-to-their-users/articleshow/62297075.cms <https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/apple-battery-controversy-this-is-what-samsung-lg-motorola-and-htc-have-to-say-to-their-users/articleshow/62297075.cms>   HTC and Motorola don+IBk-t throttle performance like Apple does <http://pocketnow.com/2017/12/28/htc-and-motorola-throttling-policies-apple>   Motorola and HTC Confirm They Don+IBk-t Throttle Older Devices <https://www.xda-developers.com/motorola-htc-dont-throttle-older-devices/>   What's amazing is that the Apple Apologists deny what nobody else denies, which is that Apple stands alone in what they did to *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* throttle iPhone performance after about a year of use.   And Apple is on record saying they'll do the same to the iPhone 8 & iPhone X (which makes the iPhone 8 about 1/2 an iPhone 8, or an iPhone IV, and the iPhone X about an iPhone V, so you may as well halve any benchmark you ever see on an iPhone moving forward because it will be half the reported performance after only about a year of use if they follow what their predecessors did.   These are all straight facts.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>: Jan 09 11:38AM -0800 On 1/9/2018 10:49 AM, Harry Newton wrote:   > Joining other Android makers, Samsung & LG claim to not throttle CPUs as batteries age > <https://9to5google.com/2017/12/29/lg-samsung-not-throttling-cpu-battery-apple/>   Android devices (at least some of them) do offer a "battery saver" option. On one phone I have, it can be set to activate when the battery reaches 15% charge remaining, or you can keep it on all the time. It's a very noticeable performance hit. But Android devices don't throttle based on the age of the battery.   I like the idea of a device monitoring its battery health and when the battery loses a certain level of capacity to advise the user that battery replacement is a good idea, plus give the option of a trade-off of performance versus time between charging. Transparency is always valued.   Tesla's plan is to repurpose car batteries, that are no longer holding enough charge for use in a car, into storage systems where energy density is less important. But in California, the last thing you want to do is to use your solar panels to charge storage batteries--you want to sell as much peak value KWH back to the utility as possible, and if you have a battery-back-up system you want to charge it with low-cost off-peak KWH.

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 09 07:52PM On 9 Jan 2018 18:18:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   > There's nothing "secret" about this.   Did you happen to notice an Apple Apology?   Do you think they apologized for nothing?   Did you happen to notice all the lawsuits?   Do you think they allege Apple did nothing wrong?   Did you happen to notice that *all* the Android manufacturers said they'd never do to their customers what Apple did to you?   Or are you blind to facts?

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 09 08:11PM On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0800, sms wrote:   > reaches 15% charge remaining, or you can keep it on all the time. It's a > very noticeable performance hit. But Android devices don't throttle > based on the age of the battery.   I completely agree with your statement, and I extend it to say that all manufacturers take battery charge *level* into account - but that's completely different from what Apple did.   The fact-hating Apple Apologists try to claim that all manufacturers do the same thing, which is like saying all salesmen lie. I'm sure a lot of salesmen lie, but some are truthful.   In this case, *all* the major Android manufacturers have been asked a very pointed question - and they all openly publicly and flatly deny that they did to their customers what Apple did to its customers.   So the real question - the *technical* question - is HOW does what Apple did differ from what Android manufacturers do?   To me, that's a very important technical question to answer correctly.   > battery loses a certain level of capacity to advise the user that > battery replacement is a good idea, plus give the option of a trade-off > of performance versus time between charging. Transparency is always valued.   You can rest assured that I *love* debugging tools! As you probably are aware, I use a plethora of Wi-Fi and Cellular signal strength apps, and I agree with you that monitoring battery "health" would be nice.   What Apple calls "chemical aging" is what needs to be monitored I think, do you agree?   NOTE: I took inorganic and organic chemistry and physics, so redox reactions are part and parcel - but I haven't delved into what's specifically different about what Apple did versus what the Android manufacturers do.   Certainly the Android manufacturers didn't throttle the CPU like Apple did (since they're all on record flatly stating as much).   Do you have a good handle on the precise differences?   > sell as much peak value KWH back to the utility as possible, and if you > have a battery-back-up system you want to charge it with low-cost > off-peak KWH.   I agree, since I pay something like $0.45 a kilowatthour peak (last week of the month) price for electricity where the average in the USA is about a quarter of that.   But why not just add *more* solar panels to charge storage batteries too?   Most solar panels don't fully run the home (they could, but it depends on who is paying for the panels in the first place because they, effectively, make that decision and most of the "rental" agencies just get you into the lower tiers).   Solar aside, I think the most important fact to differentiate is what Apple did versus what the Android manufacturers do, when we all know that the Android manufacturers are all on record stating they'd never do to their customers what Apple did to theirs.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 09 03:24PM -0500 In article <p335ms$fpl$1@dont-email.me>, sms   > But Android devices don't throttle > based on the age of the battery.   some do. they just don't want to admit it.   others just shut down or refuse to charge:   <http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/04/14/google-may-sued-nexus-6p-early- shutdown-bootloop-issues/> We reported late last year that certain Huawei Nexus 6Ps were suffering from the early shutdown problem, causing them to die with as much as 60% battery still indicated. Now, law firm Chimicles & Tikellis LLP is investigating the possibility of bringing a class action lawsuit against Google on behalf of customers who have faced this issue.   <https://forums.androidcentral.com/google-nexus-5/630741-nexus-5-random- shut-down-loss-battery.html> Well since then the battery isn't so good, and whenever I use heavy apps (primarily when i try to multitask between them) the phone will black out and will turn back on with a chunk of battery missing or it used to be dead. ... So, the phone shut off and i have a pic of the chart that does show a sudden drop. This is pretty much a fact of a dendrite is growing and not software? I wonder how much it would cost to fix this.   <https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-note-8-battery-problem- dead-charge-825899/> Some Galaxy Note 8 users reporting that their phones will not accept charge.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 09 12:42PM -0800 To kill the Undead, they must have their brains destroyed. Otherwise, they infect others. Jimmy Neutron is well down that road.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 09 09:06PM > the facts say otherwise.   > [list of blogger articles devoid of facts rightfully ignored]   > What's amazing is that the Apple Apologists   What's amazing is that you think repeating this broken-record phrase helps your case *at* *all*. All it does is show your true bias as an irrational Apple-hating troll.   > which is that Apple stands alone in what they did   If Apple stands alone in detecting batteries that can't supply require voltage and reacting in the operating system by preventing spikes in performance that would otherwise cause a premature and unexpected shutdown, potentially at a critical time for the user, such as during a 911 call, then the rest of the industry needs to catch up.   > *secretly*   Already debunked. Apple announced the feature on their website and in the iOS release notes.   > *permanently*   Already debunked. The throttling is dynamic and only trims the peak spikes in power draw, and replacing the battery restores peak performance to normal. > and *drastically* throttle   Already debunked as well. The throttling is dynamic, not fixed, and is dependant on app resource utilization, which for most apps is below peak thresholds.   > after about a year of use.   Debunked as well. There is no evidence that Apple's batteries don't last longer than 3-4 years, and a lot of evidence showing they do generally last that long. All batteries degrade over time. That's a fact of life.   > And Apple is on record saying they'll do the same to the iPhone 8 & > iPhone X   Owners of those devices will enjoy extended runtime when the battery starts to die, while owners of Android devices will watch their devices spontaneously shut down when the batteries start to die. I know whose devices I'm buying.   > (which makes the iPhone 8 about 1/2 an iPhone 8, or an iPhone IV, and > the iPhone X about an iPhone Vi   Nope because the throttling is dynamic and not fixed and doesn't affect all apps, nor batteries that are healthy.   > so you may as well halve any benchmark you ever see on an iPhone > moving forward because it will be half the reported performance after > only about a year of use if they follow what their predecessors did.   Complete nonsense.   > These are all straight facts.   They are all lies, and repeating them doesn't make you look any less foolish to rational thinking adults.   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 10 12:28AM >> based on the age of the battery.   > some do. they just don't want to admit it.   > others just shut down or refuse to charge:   User experience be damned. Good job, DROIDs... No thanks, I'll take Apple's solution with extended runtime.   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 10 03:03AM On 9 Jan 2018 21:06:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   > They are all lies,   Notice I provide references, and you never do.   I think you're just not used to something they teach kids in high school called "the scientific method".   Since you're clearly not well educated, take a lesson from me, which is that you can't call verified facts lies just because those facts shake the very foundation of your belief system.

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 10 03:08AM On 10 Jan 2018 00:28:28 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   > No thanks, I'll take Apple's > solution with extended runtime.   Everything Apple does, from the lack of testing of their products in the real world (e.g., witness iOS 7.0.1 breaking Linux connectivity where Apple merely said on their support site that the real world was "not supported")...   To the lack of testing of their products (witness the iPhone 6 shutdowns which even Apple admits blindsided them) because they never tested the phone in a refrigerated environment...   To the lack of testing of their products (witness the Mac debacle where root didn't have a password) ...   To the lack of testing of their products (witness they delivered ioS 10.x with the broadcom fix in their very hands and yet they *still* touted their release as a "security update", all the while knowing full well that they would be *destroying* that release in only 10 days - after millions of people uploaded it where Apple had to practically beg everyone to delete it ASAP even though they had the very fix in hand when they released it!)....   Everything Apple does, from the lack of testing of their products, to the fact they *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* throttled CPUs (to less than half the claimed CPU speeds) after about a year of use ... shakes the very foundation of your belief system.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 10 03:39AM >> solution with extended runtime.   > Everything Apple does ... shakes > the very foundation of your belief system.   Projection.   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 10 03:39AM > On 9 Jan 2018 21:06:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   >> They are all lies,   > Notice I provide references   References to fluff opinion pieces aren't "facts", dimwit troll.   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 10 04:34AM On 10 Jan 2018 03:39:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   >> Everything Apple does ... shakes >> the very foundation of your belief system.   > Projection.   I've studied you half-dozen Apple Apologists, and another half dozen gullibles, where you're not at all like normal prescient adults.   I think you hate facts because these facts shake the utter foundation of your belief system.   So, to maintain your belief system, you deny the facts, even to yourself.

Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 10 04:39AM On 10 Jan 2018 03:39:55 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:   > References to fluff opinion pieces aren't "facts", dimwit troll.   What is interesting is that almost every news provider asked each manufacturer for a statement, and each Android manufacturer supplied a definitive statement.   Those definitive statements were widely reported in the news, and *none* disagree with each other.   You Apple Apologists are the *only* ones disagreeing with these facts. Why?   I posit that you hate facts that shake your fundamental belief system.   In addition, I posit that you're not well educated, such that you tend to vastly overly rely on your fundamental belief system rather than facts which don't support your fundamental belief system.   Who are the Apple Apologists? *Jolly Roger, Lewis, nospam, BKonRamp, Savageduck, Hemidactylus, etc.*   It's why you Apple Apologists act the way you do - which is sad - because if you disappeared - the quality of the technical information in this newsgroup would go up by a few orders of magnitude and the sharing of factual technical information would improve exponentially.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 10 04:52AM >>> system.   >> Projection.   > I've studied   You've spent hours upon hours every day trolling a newsgroup for products you dislike and attacking complete strangers because everything Apple does shakes the very foundation of your belief system. You're a sad old fart whose only "joy" in life is disrupting otherwise peaceful newsgroups. Pathetic old man.   -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   JR

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Jan 09 06:16PM -0500 On 01/08/2018 11:26 PM, bitrex wrote: > except for the small detail that it doesn't work. Like extracting audio > from ancient times off the decorative grooves cut into clay pots while > spun on a wheel   There are a lot of ways to skin that particular cat, and normal incidence isn't required. Oblique incidence and a remote quad-cell photodiode in another nearby building is perfectly doable. The transmit laser would have a fast 2D scanner, and a separate data link would allow closing a feedback loop to keep the reflected beam centred on the quad cell. What the sound quality would be like, I don't know.   A fast, fine raster scan would allow lock acquisition in a few seconds.   Adaptive optics is used for much harder jobs than that, every day.   Cheers   Phil Hobbs   -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510   http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 09 11:22AM -0800 > IMO   Unclear. I've bought them, as well as reading glasses, and have been happy. Just hold them at arm's length and move them around to make sure that there are no waves in the lenses.     -- Cheers, Bev "I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share." -- Guess Who

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 09 11:29AM -0800 > IMO   You get only one set of eyes. The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses, unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!   Peter Wieck Melroes Park, PA

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 09 12:17PM -0800 >> IMO   > You get only one set of eyes. > The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses, unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!   Plastic and glass block UV. The cheap ones are made by the same people who make the expensive ones. Talk to your ophthalmologist, not somebody who's trying to sell you $300 sunglasses.   -- Cheers, Bev There is no such thing as a foolproof device because fools are so ingenious.

"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 09 12:40PM -0800 As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.   https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316   $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.   As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.   Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 09 02:46PM -0800 > As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA > and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.   > https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316   Good to know. I was really annoyed that my prescription plastic photogrey lenses didn't darken in the car because of insufficient UV -- in my defense, nobody worried about UVA back in the dark ages :-(   > scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When > one is -4, high-index is an issue. And optically flat lenses would be > very nearly useless.   Opticians are amazingly good at convincing people that they need designer frames if they don't want their glasses to fall apart at the first sneeze. +3 with 2D of astigmatism is no fun either :-(   > As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.   And they should have been designed a lot better. Do dogs have as wide a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that did just died before they reproduced...   -- Cheers, Bev "If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about." -- FernandoP

makolber@yahoo.com: Jan 09 08:45AM -0800 On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 11:20:10 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote: > >>>>>> definitely down for the count. I haven't had a chance to open it > >>>>>> up yet > >>>>>> but hoping it's an easy fix...   bitrex, did you get your kik going?   what was wrong?   m

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.